[ucodegen]

[quote=walterwhite]Steel bends.

Carbon fiber snaps.[/quote]Fairly accurate, but simplistic.

[ucodegen]

[quote=bearishgurl]I WAS good at “eyeballing” the cost of major renovations at one time but the stakes are higher now. For example, buyers today “expect” double-paned vinyl windows, granite, a convection oven and flooring throughout (instead of carpeting, which is generally easier and cheaper to install).

I’m uncertain that these flippers made a “lot of $$” unless they are licensed contractors who got the mat’ls at VERY deep discounts. They obviously had a VERY motivated, efficient and competent crew, which they obviously paid.[/quote]
Right now, contractors are scrambling for work, so the home owner – upgrader is in the drivers seat (for now). They did replace the windows.. I don’t know if they did all of them. It looks like the replacement windows are dual pane vinyl. The old ones were those aluminum frame single pane things. I am curious how they handled the shower that looked like it was leaking at its base. Looks almost like they closed off the far side and made it a large ‘alcove’ shower. The only bad thing that I can think of is that they removed the gutters that were over the doorway and garage. One rain and the new owners will want them there.

I suspect the purpose of the price is to start a ‘bidding war’. I think it is a little too early to do that, though that is a higher priced neighborhood. RE still has to find its legs. Definitely a lot of work in that fixup though. It is also nice that they kept that tree in the backyard. Too many flippers remove large trees.

[ucodegen]

[quote=UCGal]DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK unless you want graphic pictures of men on men sex acts.

Just saying.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it, as Seinfeld would say. I just think my boss would frown on this stuff on my screen.[/quote]
Thanks for the warning.. I don’t have any mind-bleach near me right now.

[ucodegen]

[quote UCGal]That link starting with “men/2011” is NOT work safe.
Just sayin…[/quote]
Its not screen/keyboard safe either…. more so the links to ‘jeanderpants’ on that page.

[ucodegen]

These months, I would recommend you carry tire chains and have practiced on how to install them (properly). It is easier to practice down here, than up there with freezing fingers. I have had to help too many people @ Big Bear, putting on their tire chains. The police can stop you on the mountain and check if you have tire chains in the car(if you are prepared). If you don’t, they can have you turn around. Most newer cars use ‘cables’ instead of ‘chains’ on their tires.

It does take more than two hours. Up to the foot of the mountain takes about 1hour 45 minutes, pushing it. Another 45 minutes plus to get up the mountain. As mentioned by SD Realtor, there are two ways from the south side of the mountain. Highway 330(Running Springs) and Hwy 38(Redlands). (You may need to zoom out after clicking on the link.. When I tested it, it came in right and then automatically zoomed in.. )
http://maps.yahoo.com/#lat=34.187949854182705&lon=-116.81694030761719&zoom=11
Highway 330 is more consistently plowed, but it has a serious weakness just outside of Big Bear. It runs exposed on the south side of a major slope. This is the area that several people got trapped driving home during a snowstorm. Highway 330 is still undergoing repairs from a slide.. so there are areas where there is one-way traffic. Right now, Highway 38 requires chains. This is a good website for current road conditions, the individual highways have links to their CalTrans status(s): http://www.snowsummit.com/ski/snow-report/current-snow-report/#roads

The back way that SD Realtor mentioned, is highway 18 (Lucerne Valley). You will need to take Highway 15 into Victorville to get Highway 18. Mountain traffic tends to affect Highway 330 most, though I have been caught in traffic on 18 when someone decided to drive like an idiot.

Have fun and drive safely.

NOTE: I may have the zoom-in defeated on the map link above. It looks like Yahoo’s interface becomes brain dead when you have the location specified within the URL’s ‘q’ parameter.

[ucodegen]

[quote KSMountain]1) The avionics warned “stall stall stall” something like 75 times. Yet the word never came up in the cockpit conversation. Language issue? Sensory overload?[/quote]Could also be because they discounted the stall warning because the pitot tube initially froze over (which could cause the warning to occur erroneously), and then did not keep an eye on the airspeed indicator (which uses the pitot tube) to know if it ‘thawed’. NOTE: Added this after adding my ref to the A330 flight manual. It turns out the A330 also has a GPS based speed indicator (pg230).
[quote KSMountain]3) I’m not sure there’s an angle of attack indicator in that aircraft. Others on this board may know. [/quote]There generally is not. It takes a special pitot tube to get that information directly. It can be derived using GPS track info and orientation though. The military training pods are able to get that info either directly or using the GPS data and orientation (ACMI pod = the missile like thing they put on F14’s in Top Gun). The A330 has the AoA data (I suspect derived info) but does not present the AoA data to pilot.
[quote KSMountain]5) When envisioning this accident, keep in mind this was at night over the middle of the ocean, in a storm. Probably no visual references whatsover. No horizon.[/quote]That is why I mentioned IFR. The IFR tests involve flying, landing and takeoff with a hood over you so that you can’t see out the window, only using the instruments. Commercial jetliner pilots are supposed to have completed it. (IFR = Instrument Flight Rules).

Here is another link on the incident:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/05/27/report-may-point-blame-toward-pilot-of-doomed-air-france-airbus-a330/

One of the physical warnings of a stall is that the ailerons loose effectiveness, leading towards a tendency of the plane to want to roll. Note the end of the 4th bullet up from the bottom: “The airplane was rolling side to side at up to 40 degrees.“. Last bullet indicates that they crashed with a ground speed of 107knots. That is very near the lower end of the A330’s flying envelope. If the junior pilot had not pulled back on the stick when they noticed they were 2000 feet from the ground, they might have flown out of it. The engines were already completely spun up (the TOGA setting is literally ‘floored’). Minimum takeoff distance for an A330 is 2590meters/7500feet, but that is with an initial speed of 0. They already had 107knots. Takeoff/landing speeds are normally around 145/160knots. It would have been close and colorful though.. From what I remember, min takeoff distance also includes a safety factor for a mid takeoff engine failure, so it includes distance from ‘decision point'(145knts takeoff) to stopping the Aircraft on the runway. Minimum stopping distance is about 1080m/3240feet from touchdown to stop.

Some more info:
http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/plane/airbus/A330/misc/A330-A340_Flight_Crew_Training_Manual.pdf
and even more info..
http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/flightops/aerodynamics/Getting_To_Grips_With_Weight_and_Balance.pdf

[ucodegen]

[quote flinger]There is supposedly an audible enunciation for the switch to alternate law. Furthermore, the aircraft was necessarily in alternate law given the unreliable airspeed indication–and the pilots presumably understood this.[/quote]I didn’t see any indication of the ‘alternate law’ warning going off on anything that was written. Considering that other warnings were going off in the cockpit, it might have been viewed as a distraction. Just the same, I do find that a control system that has an ‘alternate’ behavior to be a bit freaky. The transition between ‘normal’ and ‘alternate’ is not necessarily predictable nor controllable.

The problem I had with Stabilitrak is that it will grab the outside front brake if the tail starts moving out(sliding).. Under some conditions, this is actually the wrong thing to do. I had a problem when driving in Alaska.. where Stabilitrak cut in at the wrong time, making a slight low speed tail out condition worse.. then it decided that it didn’t know what it was doing.. releases the brake and I start to bring the vehicle straight.. then it decides.. “oh yes, I know what to do now”.. and grabs the other front brake.. causing rapid yaw in the opposite direction.. back and forth. I ended up locking up the brakes to stop it. – and yes, I do know how to correct a tail-out slide(doh.. turn into it and don’t touch the brakes)

[quote flinger]The artificial horizon displays the aircraft pitch and roll attitude, not the AoA. This instrument wasn’t necessarily displaying anything catastrophic, even after the plane was hopelessly stalled with a 40° AoA. [/quote]
It would when combined with the altitude indication and ascent/descent indicator. +40° and dropping in altitude makes a pretty convincing case for a stall and high AoA. This is why I got the impression that nobody was really looking at the instruments. The high pitch indicated by the artificial horizon would have also clued the senior pilot into the fact that the junior may have had the control all the way back.

[quote flinger]The static port is located on the fuselage somewhere (certainly on older general aviation aircraft), nowhere near the pitot tube.[/quote] Some have it combined.. port on the front is impact, port on the side is static (pitot-static tube).,see also http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/pitot.html https://secure.steenaero.com/Store/site/product.cfm?id=B6853D82-102E-BB20-1868CF89D388401B http://store.diydrones.com/product_p/ac-0001-04.htm . In the case of the A330, Static ports are in a different area from the pitot tube and probably weren’t subject to the icing.

[quote flinger]Also, I believe the plane did contact the water in an almost level attitude–but descending at -10,000 feet/min. That is not survivable, and the plane disintegrated on impact.[/quote]I would have to disagree on this. The last thing the junior pilot did @ 2000 feet was to pull all the way back on the stick… again. At 10000f/m, 2000feet equates to more then 10 seconds. Enough to change orientation. Tail contacting hard, whipping the front down and a huge bending moment on the fuselage would cause tearing on the bottom of the fuselage with disintegration aided by forward motion relative to water hitting the tears in the fuselage. Realize that the landing on the Hudson (flight 1549), the plane was doing close to 120mph forwards.. or 10,560ft/min. The forward motion is likely to twist the wings and try to pull the nose down as the engines first make contact with the water (which is more like a solid at 120mph).

[ucodegen]

[quote=EconProf]The price reflects the value of the land, not the building. It will probably be scraped.[/quote]
And replaced with another ugly McMansion – edifices to conspicuous consumption.

[ucodegen]

[quote flinger]By configuring the aircraft as described, it will remain in the flight envelope and not stall. The linked article explains that in ‘normal’ law, the A330 will remain in the flight envelope regardless of the pilot inputs to the controls (autopilot or not). Since airspeed had failed, the aircraft was operating in ‘alternate’ law, and all control inputs were taken literally.[/quote]This ‘normal law’/’alternate law’ behavior is something I find kind of freaky. There should be some sort of ‘audible’ or ‘visual cue’ that it is operating in ‘alternate law’, not just a warning for something else. It is like driving a car that behaves one way under ‘computer assistance’ and another without – (Stabilitrak works this way – and is kind of freaky in adverse conditions.).

What gets me is the following:

It looks like no-one looked at the artificial horizon, so they didn’t seem to notice the extremely high AOA. This device functions separately from the pitot tube.

It also doesn’t seem that they paid attention to the dive-climb and altitude indicators. Combined with high AOA and the altitude spinning downward with a high decent rate – should have clued everybody as to what was going on. Commercial pilots are supposed to be IFR rated. The pitot tube is used for altitude, but only the side vent, not impact pressure. They did get the pitot tube working part way through (giving them good airspeed indication and altitude indication).. and started flying normally.. then with all instruments working, they crashed the plane with poor flight decisions.

The youngest pilot, the one in control, seems to have his driven more by panic than conscious rational decisions. When told by the superior in the cockpit to release the stick from full-back position, that this was part of the problem, this individual grabs the stick and slams it into full-back position again after hearing that they are nearing the ground. If the plane kept horizontal and made contact with the water, it would have been more of a pancake landing – and more people may have survived.

I am amazed that the A330 flight control system doesn’t consider having wildly differing inputs on the flight control as an unusual condition and proceeds to ‘average’ the controls instead. There should be some kind of feedback to the other pilots stick as well as the ability to disable one of the ‘seats’ (imagine a control that decides to fail – would want to disable it). The old systems had the yoke move together.. so you could tell if the other pilot was giving irrational input.

[ucodegen]

[quote CDMA ENG]The reason, they explained, that you dont go to full power and point the aircraft down has everything to do with the wing design. The aircraft’s wing, if it is going to fast, start to build a shock wave over the leading edge and interrupts the airflow to the extent that the wing will lose lift.[/quote]Compressibility effect occurs trans-sonic/supersonic not low speed. This is why there were several accidents when trying to break the sound barrier. The shock wave prevented sufficient airflow from getting to the control surfaces. Next Miramar airshow, take a look at the leading edges on F18, F16s. You’ll find they are very narrow/thin. Compare that to a commercial sub-sonic plane, which has a fairly thick leading edge and to private planes which also have a fairly thick leading edge compared to their size and weight. The thicker leading edge gives an advantage due to a larger range of Angle of Attacks(AOA) that the wing will operate over (angle of attack being the angular difference between a line through the width of the wing and the vector representing the direction that the air is impacting the leading edge).

Compressibility is also the reason why supersonic aircraft try to have a smoothly transitioning cross section – ie have a coke bottle shape where the fuselage actually gets a little thinner in cross section when near the wings.

What happens at high AOAs is that as you approach stall, the laminar flow on the back(top) of the wing actually detaches from the wing surface. When that happens, you loose lift from the wing. There are all sorts of tricks done to prevent this. Next time you are on a flight, take the window seat next to the top of the wing. You’ll see small little blades sticking up from the top, near the chord of the wing(highest point, thickest in cross section) going lengthwise along the wing. You’ll notice that they are at a slight angle to the airflow. This is to create a vortex near the top wing surface that ‘glues’ the laminar flow down to the surface of the wing. If on the flight, you are on takeoff or landing and there is a moderate amount of moisture in the air – you can actually see the vortexes. Another thing to note, is that when flaps on commercial aircraft are deployed near their fullest, the leading edge of the wing actually pulls away from the wing and drops down. This is to bleed high pressure air from under the wing and ‘jet’ it close to the surface to ensure laminar flow at high Angle of Attacks.

There is another piece of the wing that you may see move. It will be near the fuselage of the wing is a large panel that tilts up from the top of the wing. Most of the panels will be in close to the fuselage. This is the ‘spoiler’ and it does what its name says. It ‘spoils’ the airflow, killing lift and increasing drag (also acting as a brake) when it comes up. It is useful at low speeds because the ailerons at the tips don’t have as much a bite on the airflow at low speeds. It has more of a ‘brake’ effect at higher speeds. They are mostly on the part of the wing nearest to the fuselage because they have a very large effect on the aircraft. If they were further out to the tip, they could easily flip or roll the aircraft.

[ucodegen]

[quote=sdrealtor]Lots of agents (myself included) hire a transaction coordinator to manage the actual file when the property is in escrow. Its usually 300 to 500 for a transaction coordinator. Some agents make the client pay it. Most (myself included) pay it out of their commission or do it themselves. So to answer your question, it wouldnt add to his commission income.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but that does not exactly compute.. I also said effective commission. The math doesn’t seem to work. Somehow, giving same commission rate on same property, paying the $300 to $500 out of commission seems to come up with less than directly charging the client. On the other hand, you might charge a 2.7% instead of 2.5% commission and pay the $300 to $500 yourself out of commission and get the same net as if you had directly charged the $300 to $500 and had a 2.5% commission.

–thereby, charging the $300 to $500 as a separate charge effectively increases the commission (without looking like it) because it removes a charge that might normally be covered under the commission, to a separate line item.

[ucodegen]

[quote sdrealtor]He does a real nice business but dont kid yourself that he’s netting anything close to what you suggested.[/quote]I said gross.. not net. I know he has quite an overhead. TV commercials can get REAL expensive REAL fast. I was trying to get a rough order of magnitude, and was more interested in the diff between sell and buy transaction representation. Someone had to be the counterparty to his sales..
[quote sdrealtor]Also to put some real numbers out there avg sales price across those 136 listings is 333K and average commission is probably around 2.5%. That translates to $1.13M.[/quote] True.. I was using 3% instead of 2.5%, but then there are people who have made statements that he expects a ‘Transaction Compliance Fee’, which would change the effective ‘percentage’ while not showing up on records. I can not attest to the existence of such a fee.. but it showed up on more than one poster.

[ucodegen]

@Matt Battiata
A bit of a recommendation here. I have mentioned something like this in the past to at least one other poster. Be careful about posting here if you don’t want every detail dissected, including histories of past transactions etc. With every ‘discussion board’ there will always be people making questionable claims. Best thing to do at times is just ‘ignore’ them. In many cases, the rest of the discussion board members do the same. The members of this board include other Realtors/Brokers, investors(stock, bonds & property), people with a lot of banking experience, people who work in the Defense Industry, engineering types, phone app writers and people who have the ability to dig up all sorts of info and correlate it. Most of the people here don’t sit at home watching TV and then just decide to randomly ‘pop-off’ on Piggington.

Looking at what sdrealtor dug up.. I find something interesting. The transactions are very heavily biased to the sell/list side as opposed to buyer side transactions (136 to 16). If I am not mistaken, and other Realtors can/will chime in here, the buyer side of the transaction is much harder than the list side. Yes, the seller has to get the owner to prep, help with staging and has to run the open house and list on the MLS. The buyer side has to do a lot of travel with the potential buyer to several properties.. on the chance that maybe the buyer will purchase. Sometimes the buyer is a ‘dry hole’.. does not purchase. Looking at the history and assuming $500k average per property, standard commission (3%/3%) means grosses of $2,040,000 on the sell side and $240,000 on the buy side of the transaction. Not bad, but looking at it from the ‘balance’ of sell to buy transactions, it would seem that it is ‘cherry picking’ the side of the transaction that is easier complete, leaving other Realtors with the more time consuming, less profitable per hour part of the task.

Now as to the quality of the listings/properties as well as to whether there is a pattern of under-listing and selling under comps, effectively short changing the seller.. I am not going to address it. I would not be surprised if one of the Realtors might be so inclined as to check completed sales against price vs comps.

I would wonder why you, Matt Battiata, would want to resurrect this thread that does not necessarily put you in a flattering light. To repeat an old adage: “Best let sleeping dogs lie”.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Hobie]It would be helpful if the ignoree could see how many have added him to their personal list. Not necessary who, but a count. ie. may help them vote themselves off the island or change their tune…[/quote]This might be useful. The specifics of who is unimportant. Sometimes a little ‘hint’ helps behavior modification. Of course someone could abuse it by creating several new accounts and have all of those new accounts ignore a specific user.. bumping up their ‘count’… so its usefulness may be limited.

[ucodegen]

Don’t reply to spammers.. it doesn’t achieve anything and if you reply, your post will get deleted with his. Don’t worry, he’ll be taken care of when Rich Toscano finds out…

[Author]

Posts